In this lecture Assagioli discusses two fundamental illusions that humanity grapples with: the illusion of unity within ourselves and the illusion of separateness from others.
By Roberto Assagioli, (Assagioli Archives – Florence)[i] A Talk given Dec. 9, 1964. Original Title: Discorso sull’Illusione. Translated and Edited With Notes by Jan Kuniholm[ii]
Abstract: In this lecture Assagioli discusses two fundamental illusions that humanity grapples with: the illusion of unity within ourselves and the illusion of separateness from others. He addresses the complexity of human nature, highlighting the internal multiplicity that contradicts the notion of a unified self. Despite theoretical understanding, practical recognition of this multiplicity is often overlooked, leading to confusion and misunderstandings in interpersonal relationships. The first illusion, he explains, is rooted in the misconception of a singular, coherent human identity, when in reality individuals are composed of contradictory and diverse subpersonalities. Assagioli emphasizes the need to acknowledge and integrate this internal diversity through a process he calls “psychosynthesis.” The second illusion revolves around the perception of separateness from others, fueled by the physical distinction of bodies. Assagioli argues that this illusion is deeply ingrained due to humanity’s historical emphasis on individuality. Overcoming this illusion requires a shift towards recognizing the underlying unity of all life. Assagioli proposes various approaches to overcoming these illusions, including cultivating empathy, practicing self-awareness, and fostering a sense of unity through love and cooperation. He emphasizes the importance of integrating intellectual understanding with emotional recognition to achieve genuine transformation. Ultimately, Assagioli envisions a world where individuals transcend illusions of self and separateness, embracing unity and cooperation for the betterment of humanity.
On the subject of illusion there is much to be said, and I shall continue by linking up with what I said last time, speaking of two great, fundamental illusions in which we more or less all find ourselves, but from which we can free ourselves.
The first is what might be called the “psychological arch-illusion;” that is, of the unity and coherence of man. We see a human being in a single body, this gives us the illusion that within that body there is an equally unitary being. Instead, all it takes is a little introspection or even observation of others to realize that this unity and coherence of the human being is an illusion.
In reality, the human being is incoherent, multiple, contradictory — to use Montaigne’s beautiful expression, ondoyant et divers — undulating and diverse. Now we all know this, more or less, theoretically and intellectually; however, we do not realize it, we constantly forget it whenever we think of or address another person. In fact we address someone as if there were just one person — but instead we address a collectivity: a community of subpersonalities at odds with each other. So maybe one of them listens to us and agrees, while there are others who line up against us; or one understands in one way, the other understands in another.
Therefore we have an endless series of confusions, errors, and misunderstandings. So we know this in theory, but in practice we do not take into account this multiplicity of ours and others. Emerson said this wittily, saying that “when John speaks to Joseph, there are three Johns speaking to three Josephs;” but that is too little, there are many more than three. So we must continually realize our own multiplicity and that of others — in practice. Now those who know a little about the esoteric teachings about man’s constitution know very well that there is the physical elemental, the astral elemental, and the mental elemental;[iii] there is the personality which more or less tries to keep them in line, there is the soul which tries to influence things and generally fails, and so on. But these are all theoretical considerations — in practice we do not take them into account. So any judgment, regarding ourselves or others expressed with the verb “to be” is wrong. Nobody is something, because everyone is that — but they are also the opposite thing, and other different things. So we should try as much as possible to free ourselves from this illusion of the unity of human being.
This plurality manifests itself in various ways, but the main one, or at least the clearest (which has also been studied by modern psychology), is ambivalence; that is, [having] opposite reactions to the same situation, to the same person, to the same fact. I will mention a few of the most frequent: toward another human being, for example, toward a superior being, generally there is a double reaction [in people]: one of admiration and the other of envy. The one of admiration is manifested by an almost exaggerated worship, it is putting the person on a pedestal, idealizing him, believing that he has more qualities than he has, what is now called “the cult of personality.” And this produces a certain identification: one identifies and imitates others in life, more and less awkwardly. For example, the most trivial and funny case is that of the imitation of movie stars and divas by thousands of boys and girls who pose like them, dress like them, comb their hair like them, etc. So there is this cult, there is this need in human nature to have worship of higher beings, which manifests itself in these lower forms but also in the higher forms, for example, imitation of Christ or imitation of Buddha. All this is a form of admiration that leads to identification; and when it comes to higher Beings it has very good effects; there is nothing wrong with it if it stays within certain limits.
However, there is also another part of us which instead feels envy, which tolerates others’ superiority badly, which instead of tending to identify tends to feel humiliated by the superiority of others, and then there is a tendency toward wanting to demolish. This is often seen in the doggedness with which people try to find fault or blame in a superior being — there are many who derive a satisfaction in pointing them out. Now there are several modern biographies of great men in which the author tries to point out all their inferior sides, and that happens precisely because of this pleasure in bring others down, because this, in a sense, raises ourselves, or at least reduces others to our level. So there is this dual reaction, whereby often this envy and tendency to demolish conceal a secret and unconfessed admiration — and conversely, when there is an exaggerated worship of a being, often there is also another inner part that protests. This ambivalence toward others at least reveals to us the two-sidedness, the duality of the human being.
This ambivalence can be — as I said now — simultaneous and generally unconscious; that is, at the same time there is both one reaction and the opposite reaction. At other times it can be successive: a period of idolatry is succeeded by the period in which the idol is demolished with equal exaggeration; or alternations of one and the other. This is the fundamental inconsistency of human beings. In general people are not very aware of this, so it is good to be on guard about it. But then there are more complicated and multiple ambivalences, according to different levels. At one level you can be attracted, at another repelled, and so on; this greatly complicates relationships between men and women, and human relationships in general, because there is attraction and repulsion simultaneously at different levels. There can be physical attraction and mental conflict, there can be emotional attraction and no physical attraction, there can be intellectual or spiritual understanding without attraction, or even with repulsion at other levels; so it is also a matter of levels.
How to get free of this multiplicity, that is very uncomfortable for us and produces many misunderstandings and conflicts? First of all we have to realize it, as we are trying to do now. It is already a lot just to realize it — not to be deluded [into believing] that it is not there, and not to try to justify one’s reactions, often incorrectly, by always blaming the other person and not one’s own complexity. And here the spiritual teachings help a lot, because knowing the diversity of origin of the various elements in us, it is natural that everyone behaves differently. I don’t know who said that man is an animal plus a God; and that they cannot get along.
So the first stage is understanding, while the second stage is the intention of producing a gradual unification, what I call “psychosynthesis.” This is an attempt to harmonize, to unify these various elements. So unity is possible, but this is a goal, an end point — because perfect unity is actually never achieved. It is a gradual, progressive unification, but in order to unify, one must first recognize that there is a need for it — that is, that we are multiple, that unity is not something that exists a priori. [According to that outlook], if there is a dissociation this would represent a disorder or a disease.
No, the normal human condition is dissociation — it is conflict and multiplicity, while this “unification” is what I would call a superhuman condition — which can be achieved, however, by various degrees. I will mention a few points only. First of all, “unification” does not mean either elimination or suppression of certain parts of us. No, it is a matter of arranging them in a hierarchical order, so to speak. Each has its function; each has its place, but instead of being inconsistent and in conflict, or disorderly alternating, they can be coordinated in a hierarchical way: the body and its elemental [i.e. center of energy] has its rights, but subordinate to the feelings; the feeling [level subordinate] to the mind, and the mind [subordinate] to the intuition. There is in short a whole hierarchy, and we can establish right relationships between the various subpersonalities, the various functions, the various elements in us, little by little.
And this, ultimately, is spiritual work in the full sense: neither to escape into the higher planes by planting the personality there, where you can’t stay anyway, and you go falling back, swinging up and down; nor to try to eliminate or suppress vital elements or condemn them. Instead, it is a matter of coordinating them, harmonizing them under the guidance, first of sound reason, of the enlightened mind, and then of the soul.
We must remember this hierarchical principle well, because this is the principle that governs the universe: the planets are hierarchically “subordinate” to the sun — this can also be seen astronomically, for it is the attraction of the sun that makes them turn and keep each in its own orbit. And the same thing happens with the atom, in which there is a central nucleus with electrons spinning around. So this hierarchical order exists in the universe, and it should be created little by little within us as well. These are points that each of you can develop and implement. And a further degree of this process is the right relationship between the personality and the soul; that is, the awakening of the spiritual consciousness, the spiritual self, the soul, and the subordination of the personality to the guidance, inspiration, and desire of the soul. So this is the first illusion to be freed from in this way.
* * *
The second illusion concerns relationships with others, and this can be called the illusion of separation, of separateness. And this too is an illusion suggested and maintained by the external senses. Since the physical bodies are separate — the physical body only reaches to the surface of the skin and together with the etheric body it reaches a little further,[iv] but they are [physically] separate — so we have the idea that psychologically and spiritually human beings are also separate. Now this is an illusion, since in the subtle planes, separation does not exist.
In fact, even the contrasts themselves demonstrate the existence of a link; if we were completely separate from others, one could not even question them, or even fight. During World War I, Romain Rolland coined this poignant expression: l’embrassement sanglant, “the bloody embrace.” Taking the example of boxing: in order to fight, two fighters must touch each other and grapple — touch each other with their fists — so there is no real separation; conflict and struggle already constitute a connection, they are already a first relationship.
However, this illusion of separateness is even more difficult to overcome than that of internal multiplicity. For hundreds of incarnations there has been nothing but the development of the sense of separate individuality, and this was not a bad thing; it was in the evolutionary plan. It was necessary, because only a strong sense of self-consciousness can allow for further developments [in humanity]— that is, the ever-increasing expansions and communions on the spiritual path — without getting lost, without falling back into undifferentiated unity.
This is the point to always remember. The primordial unity, I would say the perennial unity, exists — so any separation is an illusion. However, it is an unconscious unity, and this unconscious unity is not positive, it is not creative. One of the purposes of the great Plan of evolution was to develop self-conscious beings who are sharers in divinity, sharers in the divine Trinity.[v] For this, self-consciousness was necessary, and this could only be developed through the experience of separateness.
However, at a given point, it goes far enough. At a given point, egocentrism (egoism in a good sense, that is) — the sense of “I” — is sufficiently developed and firm (and now it is very much so, in present-day humanity). It is then necessary to do the opposite; that is, to expand or broaden, to recognize unity with other beings: first with other human beings, then ever greater without losing self-consciousness, without losing oneself in unity.
This is a logical paradox, but it is an experience that is lived by those who have reached a certain level of spiritual development. These identify with others, they feel unity with others, but they know that they feel it, they do not lose themselves, so in these cases fusion does not mean “con-fusion,” it is not a blending with others, a losing oneself in others. Instead it is joyfully and lovingly recognizing universal unity, and first and foremost unity with other human beings. But the transition period is very painful and represents a phase of deep crisis, what is justly called the experience of loneliness and isolation.
Even in these relationships with others there is a fundamental contradiction and ambivalence. On the one hand there is the strong tendency for self-assertion, against others and above others — the strong sense of “I” and its affirmation. On the other hand there is the discomfort that often reaches the anxiety of loneliness and isolation. As you know, there is a lot of talk about the anxiety of modern man — the experience of loneliness in modern people. Basically many aspects of existentialism, both the higher and lower varieties, accentuate the loneliness and the incommunicability of the human being. But the mistake they make is to absolutize it, to consider it as something definitive, something that cannot be overcome. And sometimes they cloak themselves in a more or less heroic attitude and say, “you have to have the courage to recognize it and endure it.”
Instead, this is only a phase, an inner experience which, as I said, has its own reasons for being. This leads to the experience of not depending on others, of not being attached to others to the point of becoming slaves to them, to the point of identifying with them — whether individuals or groups. But this is only one phase, which is followed instead by that of the lived recognition of communion, of the fundamental unity of life.
This stage of isolation, of solitude, has the function above all of freeing us from partial and exclusive unions, from the particular identifications to which I alluded earlier, and which hinder us from [making] the broader ones. If we are attached to, or polarized with one or more beings, we are all the more detached from all others. So to get to true spiritual communion, to the recognition of unity, we must first not be slaves to particular attachments. Again, this does not mean isolating oneself from others and it does not mean loving them less; it does not mean denying multiple and distinct human relationships; but it is a matter of seeing them hierarchically, in their proper proportions, that is, beginnings and transitions toward the wider, ever wider communion.
And even this [transition] can only take place by degrees, for if we were to have an experience of true communion in consciousness with the Absolute for a moment, we would be disintegrated by it. Our ego-self, however relatively strong and overpowering, could not resist this enlargement, this immense expansion of consciousness. So the enlargement of consciousness, the recognition of the unity of life, is accepted very well theoretically, and we are all convinced of the unity of life, the existence of a universal Mind, Love, etc. But this is theory, it is an intellectual conception that is useful and correct — it is the truth, but to realize it is another thing altogether.
This realization can only be done by degrees, but the first step is precisely this intellectual and intuitive recognition of the unity of Life, and that all separateness, all separation — and especially all opposition and conflict — is part of the great illusion. The Orientals and especially the Indians insist on it a lot, they call it sakkhayaditti, which is that the fundamental illusion is separateness.
How do you overcome this illusion of separateness? In two ways; one I would say is negative and the other positive. The negative way is by “decentering;” that is, by eliminating self-centeredness, continuous self-reference. If we observe ourselves sincerely, we can easily see that every reaction we have to other people, situations and events is always referred to ourselves, and thus there is a reaction of attraction or repulsion, pleasure or suffering. It is, I would say, a Ptolemaic attitude (you know that according to the Ptolemaic astronomical system, it was believed that the Earth was the center of the universe, and that everything revolved around it). Psychologically we are still Ptolemaic, the universe revolves around us (in practice, if not in theory), and we spontaneously, instinctively, react as if we were the center of the universe. So it is necessary to first go through the “Copernican revolution,” that is, to recognize that we are not the center of the universe, that we are at best a small planet, and that the center is another.
But the Copernican revolution — that is, making the sun the center, is not enough, at least initially. One must then recognize that the sun is but a small star that is part of a group of stars that are part of a galaxy, which in turn is part of the infinite number of galaxies. And so psychologically and spiritually the same thing happens; that is, you have to come to an ever-increasing expansion, and feel smaller and smaller in comparison to the great unity of Life. Now all of this must then be transposed into the positive mode, that of openness: first mental and intuitive openness — which is easy — and then realizing it — which is difficult. That is, openness to increasingly vast Beings and manifestations of Life. This openness from the feeling side of the heart is spiritual love, which leads to communion, participation, solidarity and cooperation in practice. These are all aspects, ways of realizing the unity of Life, fitting into the great Life — and I repeat, without losing self-awareness in the least.
These are the different degrees and forms and ways of overcoming the illusion of separateness. Easy to say, hard to do — but it is our task, and sooner or later we will get there — it is in the Divine Plan, and this can help. We should not be frightened of the difficulty; first because we are not asked to do it all suddenly but only by degrees; and second because the divine Plan helps us, and the Higher Beings who have achieved this help us, because this is the great destiny of the human Being, to become a self-conscious particle of the great, one Life. And, in practice, also a collaborator of God in the implementation of His vast Cosmic Plan. When we have learned all the lessons of this little educational institution called planet Earth we will move on to higher solar and cosmic tasks.
Discussion:
Zoe: I think the very first step might be to try to understand others, to come to eliminate dislike of others. (Assagioli: “Of course.”) And also that, I think, understanding others by studying oneself in relation to others, and thus seeing one’s own faults better.
Assagioli: But antipathy is entirely an egocentric reaction, because something annoys us in the other person, makes us dislike them; so it is an egocentric reaction. And this also can be a dislike of a superior person; the superiority of another person annoys us.
Zoe: Exactly, to know one’s own faults first and then understand others.
Assagioli: So, you see how well everything that is said about spiritual love, communion, cooperation, all understood as a concept of overcoming the illusion of separateness, fits together. And in the coming year, which is the Year of International Cooperation, this can be of great help in overcoming this illusion; because according to the various types, according to the various people, it is relatively easier, more natural, to start on one side or the other. Those who have a highly developed emotional nature find communion through love is easier for them. On the other hand, for those of a more practical or action type, it is unity realized in active cooperation for a good cause, even if there is not much emotional participation. Indeed there may very well be no particular sense of affection or love toward co-workers, but still one feels together in the task.
And so there can be intellectual and unitive communion, of being at one with others in a great faith, in a great illusion, like that, without active cooperation and without a special feeling. But we should cultivate all aspects of realized unity, namely: love, communion on the intuitive planes, and participation, solidarity, cooperation. This is the program. And so we come to what St. Paul calls “the holy freedom of the Children of God” — freedom from illusion.
And there are two affirmations that I recommend that we employ continuously, tirelessly. One is that great Hindu prayer that even the Pope repeated, “Lord, lead us from illusion to Reality, from darkness to Light, from death to Immortality.” But the condition of the second and third [part] is the first [part]: from illusion to Reality. There can be no true spiritual light if the illusion has not been overcome, there can be no conscious immortality, participation in the immortality of the soul if the illusion of separateness has not been overcome. So begin with: “lead us from illusion to Reality.”
And then there is the Mantra of Unification:
The sons of men are one and I am one with them.
I seek to love, not hate;
I seek to serve, and not exact due service;
I seek to heal, not hurt.
Let pain bring due reward of Light and Love.
Let the Soul control the outer form, and life and all events
And bring to light the Love that underlies the happenings of the time.
Let vision come and insight.
Let the future stand revealed.
Let inner union demonstrate and outer cleavages be gone.
Let Love prevail.
Let all men love.
Now I will comment on it a little, because it is so simple, so clear that the deep, essential meaning may escape because of its very clarity.
“The sons of men are one and I am one with them.” This points to the great fact that humanity is an Entity, the Fourth Realm of Nature. Humanity is a great Entity in the subtle planes. This is difficult to realize, again because of the illusion of the separation of bodies, but each realm of Nature is an Entity, it has common characteristics, it has common activities, it has common relationships, so it forms a whole — an Entity. The mineral kingdom is an Entity and all minerals are subject to the same laws, they have a place in the great Plan of evolution, and so do the other kingdoms. Humanity is one Being, and we are cells of this great organism that is the Entity “Humanity,” the Fourth Kingdom. From this naturally follows, “I seek to love, not hate.” Hate is meaningless because we would hate a part of ourselves.
The next verse is a little more . . . : “I seek to serve, and not exact due service.” At the present stage of humanity we do not receive from other human beings what would be right or fair for us to receive, if they had the consciousness of this unity. Well, we should not demand it — given their degree and condition they cannot and do not know how to do it. Therefore, we should not demand justice from other human beings. Manzoni says it so well with fine irony when [his character] Renzo[vi] goes to . . . and says “in this world there is justice at last;” and Manzoni comments, “so much so that a man overcome with grief no longer knows what he says.”[vii] In this world among human beings there is no justice, so we cannot expect to demand justice and complain if we do not receive it. This is natural — the selfishness of others tends to be unjust to us; but this should not take away from the fact that our own attitude should be different: “I seek to serve, and not exact due service.” If others behave badly, that is no justification for my not behaving well. And “I seek to heal, not hurt” seems obvious, but let’s realize how often we do harm without realizing it — not out of ill will, but out of unconsciousness, out of lack of true understanding, of true union with others. Here, too, separation leads very easily to harm.
“Let pain bring due reward of Light and Love.” This refers to what I said earlier, to suffering, anguish, loneliness, isolation. It is the isolation stage that then brings the recompense of light and love. Because woe if isolation and separateness were not painful — selfishness would suit us very well! Instead, [isolation and separateness] must become painful; one must have a sense of this pain of separation from others, and then, “Let pain bring due reward of Light and Love.” How? The next verse says it: “Let the Soul control the outer form, and life and all events.” Only by communion with the soul, by identification with the soul — that is, by recognizing that we are souls, children of God — can one control the separative external form and ordinary human life and all the events of separative life “and bring to light the Love that underlies the happenings of the time.”
It is precisely this great love that is manifested through the great divine Plan and is the expression of divine Love that brings us to union with Himself and among all His children through all these phases and stages of experience. And then the invocation “Let vision come and insight” to recognize this comes naturally. “Let the future stand revealed” — the great future of glory brought about by the realization of the unity of life, of communion in God and among ourselves.
“Let inner union demonstrate and outer cleavages be gone.” This is insisted upon. “Let Love prevail” and “Let all men love.” A fundamental and the most natural method, which is precisely the prevailing of spiritual love over selfish separateness.
One aid to overcome the illusion of separateness is first of all the objective attitude of the true scientist, who observes phenomena objectively, impartially, without taking personal positions, eliminating as much as possible what has been called “the personal equation.” And the other is what you might call [the attitude] of the scientist-psychologist — and this we can all do even without being scientists — that is to observe one’s personality from above, so to speak, with detachment and with scientific interest; that is, putting ourselves above it, recognizing that the conscious self can observe the various elements, the various levels and the various contradictory subpersonalities that I mentioned earlier, with objective interest, with detachment, without identification. This already de-centers us.
These are all different ways and modes that are not mutually exclusive. We should alternately employ all of them; from cold, scientific observation to loving communion, from active cooperation to intuitive recognition, they are all different ways to proceed toward the same goal.
Ravelli: (((just to poke him a little)))) I’ve said the main thing by now. Oh God! I feel that one there!!! (huge burst of laughter) I would be happy if there was nothing left!
Assagioli: Well, in my opinion a person should try to see which is the easiest and most natural way for him or her, and follow that one in the meantime, but don’t forget and don’t neglect the others — in short, use them all but take advantage especially of the one for which you have the most inclination.
[i] This file is from www.psicoenergetica.com.
[ii] Editor’s interpolations are shown in [brackets]. Elisions . . . indicating missing text, probably not intelligible to the transcriber of the lecture, are as found in the original. —Ed.
[iii] “Elemental” generally refers to “centers of energy” which interact with people. Physical, astral and mental refer to levels of being. “Astral” is sometimes used synonymously with “emotional.” —Ed. Elemental can also be understood as the living entities that constitutes the totality of the physical, emotional, and mental bodies. – KS.
[iv] Some energy workers and physical therapists of the present day indicate they have a clear perception of energetic levels of the human being at successive “layers” beyond the skin of the body, with which there can be interaction. —Ed.
[v] The divine Trinity the author refers to is a reality that is recognized in esoteric teaching, and is not identical with orthodox Christian teaching or dogma. —Ed.
[vi] This is a reference to the novel I promessi sposi [The Betrothed] (1842) by Italian writer Alessandro Manzoni, perhaps the most famous and widely read novel in the Italian language. The relationship between lovers Renzo and Lucia is central in the novel, which contains keen insights into the human mind. —Ed.
[vii] It appears that Assagioli has misquoted this passage or (more likely) the transcriber mistook his words; for the lecture transcription reads “tant’è vero che uno annebbiato dal vino non sa quel che dice” [so much so that one clouded by wine does not know what he says], whereas the novel reads, “Tant’è vero che un uomo sopraffatto dal dolore non sa più quel che si dica.”[“So much so that a man overcome with grief no longer knows what he says.”]. We are inserting the translation of the original. —Ed.
Leave a Reply